A “Greatest” List That’s Not All That Bad

[Bill Anderson]

Yes, there are a few Eye rollers, but all in all this is a pretty good
list.

https://www.heraldweekly.com/the-top-100-movies-in-the-history-of-film-part2/35?xcmg=1&_d=m


--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

[Your Name]

On 2023-12-23 05:38:03 +0000, Bill Anderson said:
>
> Yes, there are a few Eye rollers, but all in all this is a pretty good
> list.
>
> https://www.heraldweekly.com/the-top-100-movies-in-the-history-of-film-part2/35?xcmg=1&_d=m
>

As usual, mostly dismal garbage not even remotely worth bothering to
watch ... Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator" is even listed twice!

[moviePig]

On 12/23/2023 12:38 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
>
> Yes, there are a few Eye rollers, but all in all this is a pretty good
> list.
>
> https://www.heraldweekly.com/the-top-100-movies-in-the-history-of-film-part2/35?xcmg=1&_d=m

Biggest personal disagreement: INCEPTION

Biggest surprise that somebody thought to include it: UNDER THE SKIN

(Yes, it's a good list, fun to breeze through.)

[Bill Anderson]

The list is full of absolutely spot on yes of course totally agree superb
great movies. And then there are the weird ones. What are they doing there?
Maybe I should have a look at some of them? Maybe I missed something?

[moviePig]

I don't recall any like that. (Well, I'm not sure I've ever watched
SUNRISE end-to-end, usually opting to scratch that itch with NOSFERATU.)
But, yes, certainly I'd check out any unseen talkies.

[Mack A. Damia]

"12 Angry Men"

The one guy I don't like in that movie is Lee J. Cobb. Not certain
why, maybe his acting is a little too phony, too much of an
affectation.

But look at the photo in the article. There are only eleven men
pictured and he is not included.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>"12 Angry Men"

>The one guy I don't like in that movie is Lee J. Cobb. Not certain
>why, maybe his acting is a little too phony, too much of an
>affectation.

He and Biff weren't on speaking terms.

>But look at the photo in the article. There are only eleven men
>pictured and he is not included.

There's a bit of suspension of disbelief for Jack Klugman as the teenage
(now adult) gang banger.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 01:30:32 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>. . .
>
>>"12 Angry Men"
>
>>The one guy I don't like in that movie is Lee J. Cobb. Not certain
>>why, maybe his acting is a little too phony, too much of an
>>affectation.
>
>He and Biff weren't on speaking terms.

Is it common knowledge who "Biff" is?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Sun, 24 Dec 2023 01:30:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:

>>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>"12 Angry Men"

>>>The one guy I don't like in that movie is Lee J. Cobb. Not certain
>>>why, maybe his acting is a little too phony, too much of an
>>>affectation.

>>He and Biff weren't on speaking terms.

>Is it common knowledge who "Biff" is?

Sigh

[Mack A. Damia]

Just answer the question, fool.

[Bill Anderson]

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 05:42:47 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Sun, 24 Dec 2023 01:30:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:
>>>> Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>>> "12 Angry Men"
>>
>>>>> The one guy I don't like in that movie is Lee J. Cobb. Not certain
>>>>> why, maybe his acting is a little too phony, too much of an
>>>>> affectation.
>>
>>>> He and Biff weren't on speaking terms.
>>
>>> Is it common knowledge who "Biff" is?
>>
>> Sigh
>
> Just answer the question, fool.
>
>
>
>

Lee J. Cobb is noted for playing Willy Loman in Arthur Miller‘s Death of a
Salesman. Willy’s oldest son, with whom he did not see eye to eye, was
named Biff.

I actually remembered the name, but I would not consider it “common
knowledge.” Biff in Back to the Future might qualify, especially here in a
movie discussion group, but answering the question rather than showing off
would have been a more reasonable response I think. Merry Christmas.

[Mack A. Damia]

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 20:02:41 +0000, Bill Anderson
<bill.a...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 05:42:47 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
>> <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> Sun, 24 Dec 2023 01:30:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:
>>>>> Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> . . .
>>>
>>>>>> "12 Angry Men"
>>>
>>>>>> The one guy I don't like in that movie is Lee J. Cobb. Not certain
>>>>>> why, maybe his acting is a little too phony, too much of an
>>>>>> affectation.
>>>
>>>>> He and Biff weren't on speaking terms.
>>>
>>>> Is it common knowledge who "Biff" is?
>>>
>>> Sigh
>>
>> Just answer the question, fool.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>Lee J. Cobb is noted for playing Willy Loman in Arthur Miller‘s Death of a
>Salesman. Willy’s oldest son, with whom he did not see eye to eye, was
>named Biff.
>
>I actually remembered the name, but I would not consider it “common
>knowledge.” Biff in Back to the Future might qualify, especially here in a
>movie discussion group, but answering the question rather than showing off
>would have been a more reasonable response I think. Merry Christmas.

Thanks for that. I did come across "Death of a Salesman" associated
with Lee J. Cobb, but "Biff" wasn't mentioned.

Here is my Christmas gift to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYKlV0vkIs

[Your Name]

According to Bob Gale (one of the creators of "Back to the Future"),
the character of Biff Tannen was partly based on / inspired by Donald
Trump ... a brainless bully with delusions of grandeur and an
over-bloated ego ... it certainly does fit.

[Bill Anderson]

Thanks. It’s a great story, isn’t it? I remember struggling to understand
as a child in lower elementary school when our teacher read us the story. I
knew what a comb was, but why would anyone want to leave one in their hair?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Bill Anderson <bill.a...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>Sun, 24 Dec 2023 05:42:47 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:

>>>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>Sun, 24 Dec 2023 01:30:32 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:
>>>>>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>>"12 Angry Men"

>>>>>>The one guy I don't like in that movie is Lee J. Cobb. Not certain
>>>>>>why, maybe his acting is a little too phony, too much of an
>>>>>>affectation.

>>>>>He and Biff weren't on speaking terms.

>>>>Is it common knowledge who "Biff" is?

>>>Sigh

>>Just answer the question, fool.

>Lee J. Cobb is noted for playing Willy Loman in Arthur Miller's Death of a
>Salesman. Willy's oldest son, with whom he did not see eye to eye, was
>named Biff.

>I actually remembered the name, but I would not consider it "common
>knowledge." Biff in Back to the Future might qualify, especially here in a
>movie discussion group, but answering the question rather than showing off
>would have been a more reasonable response I think. Merry Christmas.

I certainly wasn't "showing off". And in this newsgroup, in which there
are discussions of old movies, yes, I was expecting it to be common
knowledge. As the joke fell flat, I wasn't in the mood to explain the
reference, but I really expected I'd need to. Nor did I expect to be the
target of Mack's foul mood.

Death of a Salesman is one of the most successful and most famous plays
ever written for the American stage. Lee J. Cobb was the original Willy
Loman on Broadway. He played the part again in the 1966 adaptation for
tv. This is the part that Lee J. Cobb is most famous for.

While Cobb was not in the 1954 teleplay "12 Angry Men", he played #3 in
the 1955 adaptation for Broadway and the 1957 adaptation for film.

I'm sure casting him in 1955 was well worth the money and both the
Broadway audience and movie audience would have understand why he was
cast.

[Mack A. Damia]

If it was a "foul mood", it was in response to your foul reply to a
simple and reasonable question.

I highly doubt that it is "common knowledge".

[Mack A. Damia]

On Mon, 25 Dec 2023 03:05:38 -0800, Mack A. Damia

"condescending" is the word I was trying to think of to describe your
response.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Mon, 25 Dec 2023 00:33:31 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:

In a newsgroup in which people discuss their love of old movies? Yes,
I expected its regulars to know whom Lee J. Cobb was.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Mon, 25 Dec 2023 03:05:38 -0800, Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com>:
>>Mon, 25 Dec 2023 00:33:31 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com>:

And you're not in a foul mood, unable to let this go.

I was irritated that the joke fell flat. Surely "Sigh" conveyed that.

Is there any chance you'll drop this now, or does it require still
another followup to yourself and further denial of your foul mood?

Next time I make a reference, if you don't get it, who the fuck cares?
It's unimportant.

[Bill Anderson]

It’s Christmas Day and I am feeling benevolent so I will try to help you
both if I can. I know how these Internet spats go, but ‘tis the season and
all, so let’s see.

Adam made an erudite joke about Lee J Cobb. Mack didn’t get it and said so.
Adam responded with a sigh.

Mack interpreted the sigh as, “you are an idiot for not understanding.“
Just for the record, that’s how I interpreted the sigh too.

But now it appears Adam intended the sigh as a signal of disappointment
that people didn’t understand his joke. No condescension; just regret.

Sounds like a minor misunderstanding to me. Amusing, even. Happy holidays
and peace on earth.

[Mack A. Damia]

Exactly. Why wouldn't any reasonable peson answer the question if he
knew the answer? I took his sigh as a put down.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Exactly. Why wouldn't any reasonable peson answer the question if he
>knew the answer? I took his sigh as a put down.

Clearly, you are never ever getting over it.

There's simply no reason to participate in this newsgroup.

[Mack A. Damia]

rOn Tue, 26 Dec 2023 01:15:02 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>Mack A. Damia <drstee...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>. . .
>

>>Exactly. Why wouldn't any reasonable person answer the question if he

>>knew the answer? I took his sigh as a put down.
>
>Clearly, you are never ever getting over it.

I never ever get over rude people.

>There's simply no reason to participate in this newsgroup.

Good that you're leaving.

[moviePig]

"Lee J. Cobb", yes. "Biff", not so much. And it's "who".

[Bill Anderson]

Since you appeared to ask:

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a cartoon, a good one in fact, but
it doesn't belong on a list with Lawrence of Arabia.

The Shawshank Redemption is adored by millions, but not me. I'll admit I
will always allow myself to enjoy the last 20 minutes or so, but still
that doesn't make it a great movie.

Star Wars: Episode V- The Empire Strikes Back: It's good, but the first
movie was the brilliant one. So why isn't the first movie on the list?

Inside Out: Another cartoon, and a rather obscure one. I predict it'll
soon be forgotten.

Whiplash: Not on my radar.

Alien and Aliens: Excellent sci-fi but not "great" films.

12 Years a Slave: Haven't seen it but seems too recent to be on a list
like this.

Spotlight: good but too recent.

Playtime: not on my radar

LA Confidential: Didn't click with me.

Inception: Great movie? C'mon.

Coco and Wall-E: Nice cartoons but not great.

Under the Skin: loved it, but but does it belong in the canon of great
movies? C'mon.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: Should be lumped with the others
which makes me wonder where the rest of this 100 movie list is.

I agree almost unreservedly with putting all the other films on this
list, but there must be more to it somewhere. Love it or loathe it, GWTW
belongs on a list of great movies and so do plenty more that don't show
up here. At least it's clear the author has eclectic taste and a broad
appreciation of the good stuff.

[moviePig]

On 12/30/2023 4:44 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
> On 12/23/2023 2:45 PM, moviePig wrote:
>> On 12/23/2023 2:50 PM, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>> moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>> On 12/23/2023 12:38 AM, Bill Anderson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there are a few Eye rollers, but all in all this is a
>>>>> pretty good list.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.heraldweekly.com/the-top-100-movies-in-the-history-of-film-part2/35?xcmg=1&_d=m
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
Biggest personal disagreement: INCEPTION
>>>>
>>>> Biggest surprise that somebody thought to include it: UNDER THE
>>>> SKIN
>>>>
>>>> (Yes, it's a good list, fun to breeze through.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The list is full of absolutely spot on yes of course totally
>>> agree superb great movies. And then there are the weird ones.
>>> What are they doing there? Maybe I should have a look at some of
>>> them? Maybe I missed something?
>>
>> I don't recall any like that. (Well, I'm not sure I've ever
>> watched SUNRISE end-to-end, usually opting to scratch that itch
>> with NOSFERATU.) But, yes, certainly I'd check out any unseen
>> talkies.
>>
>>
>
> Since you appeared to ask:

Actually, I confess that I read your post too quickly, and somehow
inferred you were talking about movies you hadn't seen (which I thought
odd). I see now that 'weird' meant 'imposturing'...

> Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a cartoon, a good one in fact,
> but it doesn't belong on a list with Lawrence of Arabia.

You turned me off to this one. (Easily done for a cartoon.)

> The Shawshank Redemption is adored by millions, but not me. I'll
> admit I will always allow myself to enjoy the last 20 minutes or so,
> but still that doesn't make it a great movie.

Every time SHAWSHANK gets praised, I feel a twinge of smug superiority.
The worst kind of "crowd-pleaser".

> Star Wars: Episode V- The Empire Strikes Back: It's good, but the
> first movie was the brilliant one. So why isn't the first movie on
> the list?

Because nobody appreciates that the first one was satire. Maybe not
even George himself.

> Inside Out: Another cartoon, and a rather obscure one. I predict
> it'll soon be forgotten.

Not by me, anyway, as it's a cartoon.

> Whiplash: Not on my radar.

Defensible as brilliant, though its brilliance is what's to enjoy.
Iirc, it made J.K. Simmons even more insufferable.

> Alien and Aliens: Excellent sci-fi but not "great" films.

I enjoyed both of these (dissimilar) films far too much to begrudge them
any superlatives.

> 12 Years a Slave: Haven't seen it but seems too recent to be on a
> list like this.

Political correctness, afaics. More "important" than good.

> Spotlight: good but too recent.

P.C. again, whack-a-priest division. And I take "too recent" to mean
"unlikely to be watched a second time". > Playtime: not on my radar
I think I've seen it. Probably really funny in its original run.

> LA Confidential: Didn't click with me.

I remember the excitement, but from a distance.

> Inception: Great movie? C'mon.

Built on a gimmick, a half-hour one.

> Coco and Wall-E: Nice cartoons but not great.

Tautology. (Well, not really, as I loved IRON GIANT.)

> Under the Skin: loved it, but but does it belong in the canon of
> great movies? C'mon.

It's hard to turn hard sci-fi into a good movie. This one tried.

> The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers: Should be lumped with the
> others which makes me wonder where the rest of this 100 movie list
> is.

The first one bowled over a skeptical, demanding audience. 'Nuff said.

> I agree almost unreservedly with putting all the other films on this
> list, but there must be more to it somewhere. Love it or loathe it,
> GWTW belongs on a list of great movies and so do plenty more that
> don't show up here. At least it's clear the author has eclectic taste
> and a broad appreciation of the good stuff.

I'll choose to imagine the author compiled a first draft of Really Good
Movies, and then let his beer buddies make "just a couple adjustments".

[Your Name]

On 2023-12-30 21:44:26 +0000, Bill Anderson said:
>
<snip>

>
> Star Wars: Episode V- The Empire Strikes Back: It's good, but the first
> movie was the brilliant one. So why isn't the first movie on the list?

"Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back" is considered to be
the best movie in the Saga by most people, including the majority of
Star Wars fans.

"Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" (aka the original "Star Wars"
movie) is often second in the lists, but not always.

Although the original movie was ground-breaking in many ways and
attention-grabbing, it is rather slow (the Vader Obi-Wan lightsabre
battle for example). The Episode V movie has more pace, more story, and
more action. A lot of people put it down to George Lucas not being a
good director, or at least not a good explainer of what he wants (he's
also often not considered a great writer - some of the lines in the
Saga movies are attrocious).